You know, that's not actually what he belives. In fact, I might go as far as to say, your entire argument is a strawman. > States should spend without worrying

You know, that's not actually what he belives. In fact, I might go as far as to say, your entire argument is a strawman. > States should spend without worrying about spending the money of their tax payers I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. That government spending is immoral? Yes I doubt he agrees with that premise, but I doubt many people do. > Once the money is gone continue spending with debt, don't worry about interest or inflation, as central bank you can create money out of thin air. Krugman is not calling for unchecked spending, as you appear to be implying. During the bush years, he frequently criticized policies that ran up debt. However, in his view the long term cost of a recession/stagnant economy is much larger that the amount of debt that might be bought to perform quantitative easing, or any other government intervention in times of financial crisis. > Continue "stimulating" the economy, raise taxes to 100% or declare bankruptcy of your debt if necessary, inflation does not matter, that people loose all their savings does not matter, that private economy disappears does not matter. Complete hyperbole. Where on earth did you learn about krugman? Because frankly this comment is awful. You start by calling him a shill, which quite clearly shows your biases, and gives you a reason to dismiss his arguments without giving them proper thought. You then go on to call him not very intelligent which is frankly condescending and very arrogant. And then straight after that you have a sentance that sounds exactly like a libertarian talking point. It has all the markers of being a great political attack: comparison to soviet union, allusions to loss of liberty/totalitarianism, and most of all, factually incorrect. You call him a shill yet you come off as one, and you give no indication that you have ever tried to understand his ideas with an open mind. I do not subscribe to the Randian ideology, yet I can see why a person might. Can you do the same for krugman? When children are young, sometimes they get told to name five good things about a person before they express their dislike for then. Can you do that for krugman?